[MarkBsnr]

We are aware of mother in law, yet not of Peter’s wife.

Paul is attempting to get acceptance for his apostleship here. He is emotionally appealing for the same acceptance, rights and privileges that he sees the rest of the Apostles getting. He is complaining that the rest of the Apostles have the right to not work, the right to take family along, and all the things that he sees the Jerusalem Apostles have that he does not have. This passage is evidence that at least some of them were married and had families, yet it is never clear which ones, and, forgive me if I misrecollect, but there are no families mentioned on the evangelical journeys, are there?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This passage is evidence that at least some of them were married and had families, yet it is never clear which ones

Certainly it is. Metmom just provided you with clarity...

Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? (Cephas is Syriac for Peter)

Once again a Bible-believing Christian posts the unambiguous words of God and once again RC apologists do not understand them.

There's no introspection in Rome; no sense of "maybe we didn't get this right because our beliefs clearly contradict the word of God." No discernment. No rightly dividing the word. No comprehension.